Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

[Mr Fossil]

Just to move on to something a bit different that hasn't received a lot of attention. I'd like to canvass the subject of the bedroom door. There was a reasonable amount of damage plus a "bullet" hole of some description. I'd like to suggest a possible scenario. They were both downstairs arguing. Reeva had had enough and said she was "getting out of here" and headed upstairs. OP "always wins" so he started off after her. As soon as she saw this, she had no way of retreating back downstairs so rushed into the bedroom and locked the door. OP reached the top, was now in a rage, bashed the door with the cricket bat, and then saw the air rifle which had a silencer on it so he used that to shoot through the door. Meanwhile she was hurriedly getting into her jeans but he broke through the door and ripped them off her. She grabbed her shorts and top and raced for the toilet, locking the door behind her. He pursued her shouting "Get the f*ck out of my house", and we all know what happened next. Any comments? I'm sure there could be lots of scenarios.

I posted something similar about bashing the bedroom door open back in April, though without the air rifle bit, see http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10462371#post10462371, though I'd probably change a few things now. The air rifle was inside the bedroom in the photos, but I accept that it may not have been at the time.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just to move on to something a bit different that hasn't received a lot of attention. I'd like to canvass the subject of the bedroom door. There was a reasonable amount of damage plus a "bullet" hole of some description. I'd like to suggest a possible scenario. They were both downstairs arguing. Reeva had had enough and said she was "getting out of here" and headed upstairs. OP "always wins" so he started off after her. As soon as she saw this, she had no way of retreating back downstairs so rushed into the bedroom and locked the door. OP reached the top, was now in a rage, bashed the door with the cricket bat, and then saw the air rifle which had a silencer on it so he used that to shoot through the door. Meanwhile she was hurriedly getting into her jeans but he broke through the door and ripped them off her. She grabbed her shorts and top and raced for the toilet, locking the door behind her. He pursued her shouting "Get the f*ck out of my house", and we all know what happened next. Any comments? I'm sure there could be lots of scenarios.

BIB

JJ, from previous photos before the event it appears that the cricket bat and the gun were both kept in the bedroom. Unless he had moved them to a new place outside the bedroom, how would he have access to either/both of them if she shut herself in the bedroom?

I agree the door looks as though it has been hit several times and it seems that the air rifle may have been used to punch a hole through the door at some stage. There was also a split to the side of the door which it what prevented it from being safely locked (the reason why OP said he used to wedge the bat there in order to jam the door). I think these were from an earlier event/s but go to show the type of violent temper OP has. Whether it was with RS, I don't know, but I cannot imagine she would not have mentioned it (no record of her having referred to it and the rifle was obviously shot from inside the bedroom causing a neat entry point on that side and a split on the other side of the door). Whatever happened, it does confirm that OP's temper was not just verbal. It makes me wonder if somebody locked him in his bedroom when he was in one of his rages and the door damage was the result of him breaking out. Again I don't think this was RS. I am sure she would have commented in her Whatsapp messages if it had been.

Perhaps ST knows something about it. Her mother said there were times that she was concerned about things that could have gone very wrong with OP and his gun.

I am hoping when he is incarcerated that people will be a little more open about their interactions with him.

 

[Mr Fossil]

OP goes to the kitchen to retrieve tape etc. while Carice is left with her fingers in Reeva’s mouth. I believe this is when OP retrieves his 4949 phone which Sam Taylor testifies he normally left there on charge overnight.

The ambulance arrives at 03:41:58. The paramedics announce time of death as 03:50. Just prior to this, OP goes upstairs to fetch Reeva’s handbag for the paramedics. This is before the phone calls to Justin Divaris, Carl and Peet van Zyl. I believe this is when OP places the 4949 phone under the towel in the bathroom. It is possibly also when he retrieves the 0020 phone but he may have had it in his pocket as he stated. Carice doesn't see OP initiate the call to Divaris so he may have plugged it into the charger at any stage in this scenario.

Carice testifies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYFykD2nRk @ 19:50

Almost as he was out of my vision my dad came in and he’s like, “where’s Oscar?” and I said “he went upstairs” and then I immediately thought, “oh my gosh”, cos when I was standing there I heard him saying to the paramedics “the gun’s upstairs in the bathroom” and I thought he’s going to go and possibly shoot himself. So I immediately ran up and I stood ... I was too scared to go any further, so I stood at the top of the stairs there in the dark and I just shouted “Oh my ... Oscar, please, just bring the bag quickly.” But I saw ... I heard him walking on the, on the tile area and I could hear he went ... and then I couldn't hear him any more. And that was when I was asking “Oscar please just bring the bag” and he came back out and he brought me the bag. And, umm, he handed me the bag and we walked back downstairs.


The tile area includes the bathroom. The bedroom is carpeted.

Updated to say:

BIB OP goes upstairs after paramedics announce time of death, not before (my mistake).

Stander testifies that the kitchen light is on when he and Carice arrive, and OP is at the half landing on the stairs, carrying Reeva down. As OP had clearly been in the kitchen prior to this (when he came down to open the door? although anything is possible) he could equally have retrieved the 4949 phone at this point, placing it under the towel and swapping it for the 0020 phone when he went back to fetch Reeva or when he went to fetch the handbag (he must have gone in the bathroom for a reason). Or at any stage prior to the Standers arriving if OP's version is even more untrue.

 

[geevee]

The toilet door actually has a key lock on both the inside & the outside of the door.

In Oscar's version of events, he claims that Reeva had locked the toilet door from the inside, using the key and therefore he couldn't get in to help her. (He suggests she was likely using the toilet or just exiting when she heard him scream in the bedroom/entrance to hallway for the intruder to "get the F#%! out" & "Reeva call the police". On hearing this she immediately slammed the toilet door closed & locked it). He therefore had to bash the panels with the cricket bat and after doing so, saw the key on the floor of the toilet area - not in the lock (so it apparently popped out of the lock with all the bashing OR Reeva had it in her hand & dropped it after being shot I guess). So then Oscar said he reached through the broken panel opening and grabbed the key off the floor, inserted it into the outside lock and opened the door.

So that is his version of: (A) why the toilet door panels were broken and torn out & (B) why key found in the outside lock.

Of course....doesn't really touch on WHY all the tiles on wall left of door broken, or WHY metal/SS plate on tub dented in. Not to mention the damage done to bedroom door either.

"I PUT TO YOU"....he's lying.

Regarding the term "put to" . . . I think it's just a phrase/term he uses when getting ready to suggest something. For example: I put to you Mr. Pistorius, that an argument took place & never was there a worry of an intruder in your home.

FYI: that term is oddly catchy. I now find myself wanting to insert that phrase into my everyday speech, from time to time. (Mostly to myself, because if I were to say it to my family they would look at me like I was losing it). When I say it (in my head), I seem to always add the accent too! LOL . . . perhaps I am "losing it". :dunno:

I finally found a pic showing the inside of the bathroom door lock, hard to tell but it seems to have a turn handle on it instead of a hole to insert a key. I've been confused about the lock and don't recall too much being said during testimony. I also wondered if they tested the key/fob for the presence of blood.



That phrase, along with accent gets stuck in my head too. lol

 

[Cherwell]

It's just an ordinary key and keyhole.

 

[4MrsB]

I finally found a pic showing the inside of the bathroom door lock, hard to tell but it seems to have a turn handle on it instead of a hole to insert a key. I've been confused about the lock and don't recall too much being said during testimony. I also wondered if they tested the key/fob for the presence of blood.

View attachment 57910View attachment 57911

That phrase, along with accent gets stuck in my head too. lol

I believe the INSIDE of the toilet door has a keyhole for locking it, NOT a typical "thumb turn key" knob. I know in the U.S., typical bathroom & bedroom doors use an inside "privacy lock" which does not involve the need for an actual key. However, I believe in this toilet of Oscar's master bathroom, it used a key for locking it BOTH from the inside & outside - same key used for both sides.

IIRC - Nel had someone show that the "green key" worked in locking the toilet door from inside & outside (I might be remembering this incorrectly, the testing of the key - but I have a slight memory of one of the witnesses for Nel doing that during testimony regarding door).

I agree, seems unusual to have a need for an actual key for locking a toilet door, and not just a thumb key type locking mechanism. But I believe this is how this particular door worked.

Having said all that...I personally don't think the door was necessarily locked from the inside by Reeva. I'm not sure the "green key" was available for her to grab when racing to hide in the bathroom from OP. It's a pretty hideous looking key & green tag hanging down. I believe it was stored close by (meaning OP could have retrieved it to assist in his "version" to police). But as a single guy living alone (most nights), I doubt he had a need for a hideous green tagged locking key hanging from the master toilet door 24/7...in all the years he lived there, would he EVER have a need to lock that door? . . . until now.

 

[foxbluff]

Many months ago someone here posted a link to S.A. Law and I read beyond the applicable portion of text and was surprised to learn that the use of the phrase "I put it to you" is actually a requirement in law !!

In the link below, David Dadic has been asked why Roux keeps saying "I put it to you" and imo has done an excellent job of answering that question and defining the meaning of the phrase:

http://whosyourdadic.com/

<snipped> Well the simple answer is, he has to. In order to answer this question we have to first establish what “it” is. “It” is his client’s version or evidence elements that make up the version. One could replace “I put it to you that” with “my client will testify that” or “my client’s evidence will show that”, whichever way you say it (personally I like to mix it up a bit, whereas Roux, well, one could say, doesn’t), it basically means that he is making his client’s case known to court, and testing whether that case / version can be reasonably argued against the state’s witnesses version (male vs female screaming voice, shots vs bat noises, I’m fine vs everything’s fine) . It’s also required of him to do it to every witness (that’s why it seems we’re stuck in an “I put it to you” wormhole) because if he doesn’t then that state witnesses evidence is unchallenged and will stand as accepted, which is obviously not good for Oscar." <snipped>

 

[Lux et Veritas]

&#8220;I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.&#8221;
- OP Bail Statement

So OP grabs his gun from under the bed ... and his holster ends up on the night stand?

I call bullsh#t.

Wouldn&#8217;t a &#8220;terrified&#8221; person in &#8220;pitch blackness&#8221; grab his gun and simply DROP the holster?

Police should have found it on the floor.

It took conscious thought and deliberate effort to actually PLACE the holster on the night stand.

 

[Interested Bystander]

“I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.”
- OP Bail Statement

So OP grabs his gun from under the bed ... and his holster ends up on the night stand?

I call bullsh#t.

Wouldn’t a “terrified” person in “pitch blackness” grab his gun and simply DROP the holster?

Police should have found it on the floor.

It took conscious thought and deliberate effort to actually PLACE the holster on the night stand.

Totally agree. It has always bugged me and that is the reason I brought it up recently. The placement of the holster and the blood stain above it seemed relatively unimportant to Nel even though OP's excuse was pretty feeble. I really thought he would press OP about it just as he did about the duvet. I suppose Nel did not see it as incrimating as the blood on the duvet.

 

[geevee]

Many months ago someone here posted a link to S.A. Law and I read beyond the applicable portion of text and was surprised to learn that the use of the phrase "I put it to you" is actually a requirement in law !!

In the link below, David Dadic has been asked why Roux keeps saying "I put it to you" and imo has done an excellent job of answering that question and defining the meaning of the phrase:

http://whosyourdadic.com/

<snipped> Well the simple answer is, he has to. In order to answer this question we have to first establish what &#8220;it&#8221; is. &#8220;It&#8221; is his client&#8217;s version or evidence elements that make up the version. One could replace &#8220;I put it to you that&#8221; with &#8220;my client will testify that&#8221; or &#8220;my client&#8217;s evidence will show that&#8221;, whichever way you say it (personally I like to mix it up a bit, whereas Roux, well, one could say, doesn&#8217;t), it basically means that he is making his client&#8217;s case known to court, and testing whether that case / version can be reasonably argued against the state&#8217;s witnesses version (male vs female screaming voice, shots vs bat noises, I&#8217;m fine vs everything&#8217;s fine) . It&#8217;s also required of him to do it to every witness (that&#8217;s why it seems we&#8217;re stuck in an &#8220;I put it to you&#8221; wormhole) because if he doesn&#8217;t then that state witnesses evidence is unchallenged and will stand as accepted, which is obviously not good for Oscar." <snipped>

Thanks Foxbluff, that's a very good explanation.

 

[G.bng]

Many months ago someone here posted a link to S.A. Law and I read beyond the applicable portion of text and was surprised to learn that the use of the phrase "I put it to you" is actually a requirement in law !!

In the link below, David Dadic has been asked why Roux keeps saying "I put it to you" and imo has done an excellent job of answering that question and defining the meaning of the phrase:

http://whosyourdadic.com/

<snipped> Well the simple answer is, he has to. In order to answer this question we have to first establish what “it” is. “It” is his client’s version or evidence elements that make up the version. One could replace “I put it to you that” with “my client will testify that” or “my client’s evidence will show that”, whichever way you say it (personally I like to mix it up a bit, whereas Roux, well, one could say, doesn’t), it basically means that he is making his client’s case known to court, and testing whether that case / version can be reasonably argued against the state’s witnesses version (male vs female screaming voice, shots vs bat noises, I’m fine vs everything’s fine) . It’s also required of him to do it to every witness (that’s why it seems we’re stuck in an “I put it to you” wormhole) because if he doesn’t then that state witnesses evidence is unchallenged and will stand as accepted, which is obviously not good for Oscar." <snipped>

It is NOT the phrase, "I put it to you", that is required by law! That would be silly. What Dadic says is required by law is that the defense "put" the relevant parts of their client's case to each witness to test it against the their version to see if it works. Dadic even says "one could replace "I put it to you" with, "my client will testify that...", etc. which Roux did on several occasions.

 

[JudgeJudi]

In the poll I posted up-thread the percentage of people who believe OP is guilty of murder has increased from 88% to 91%.

 

[kittychi]

Totally agree. It has always bugged me and that is the reason I brought it up recently. The placement of the holster and the blood stain above it seemed relatively unimportant to Nel even though OP's excuse was pretty feeble. I really thought he would press OP about it just as he did about the duvet. I suppose Nel did not see it as incrimating as the blood on the duvet.

BBM: Not that I expect it, but I would be so interested to hear an analysis of the case by Nel...why he chose to focus on certain things, why he did not use some things that we have all discussed as important (the existence of Frank, the battered bedroom door, the broken tiles in the bath, etc.).

Although I suppose he would not want to give away his strategies to those yet to oppose him in court!

:sigh: some things we will never know.

 

[kittychi]

It is NOT the phrase, "I put it to you", that is required by law! That would be silly. What Dadic says is required by law is that the defense "put" the relevant parts of their client's case to each witness to test it against the their version to see if it works. Dadic even says "one could replace "I put it to you" with, "my client will testify that...", etc. which Roux did on several occasions.

Lol except when your client goes rogue, Mr. Roux :floorlaugh:

 

[Val1]

BIB

JJ, from previous photos before the event it appears that the cricket bat and the gun were both kept in the bedroom. Unless he had moved them to a new place outside the bedroom, how would he have access to either/both of them if she shut herself in the bedroom?

I agree the door looks as though it has been hit several times and it seems that the air rifle may have been used to punch a hole through the door at some stage. There was also a split to the side of the door which it what prevented it from being safely locked (the reason why OP said he used to wedge the bat there in order to jam the door). I think these were from an earlier event/s but go to show the type of violent temper OP has. Whether it was with RS, I don't know, but I cannot imagine she would not have mentioned it (no record of her having referred to it and the rifle was obviously shot from inside the bedroom causing a neat entry point on that side and a split on the other side of the door). Whatever happened, it does confirm that OP's temper was not just verbal. It makes me wonder if somebody locked him in his bedroom when he was in one of his rages and the door damage was the result of him breaking out. Again I don't think this was RS. I am sure she would have commented in her Whatsapp messages if it had been.

Perhaps ST knows something about it. Her mother said there were times that she was concerned about things that could have gone very wrong with OP and his gun.

I am hoping when he is incarcerated that people will be a little more open about their interactions with him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2582516/Revealed-Oscar-Pistoriuss-plan-buy-arsenal-six-guns-court-shown-horror-bathroom-shot-Reeva.html

bbm -

An air rifle stands next to a cabinet near the runner's bedroom

Perhaps OP had heard someone/RS in the kitchen and went down "to investigate" with his air rifle, they argued about his paranoia, she ran and locked herself in the bedroom(I doubt she could have reached the top lock even if she had time), OP shot at it for whatever reason he thought justified it or just because he could, she screamed and ran for the bathroom, OP broke through the bedroom door, she slammed open the window and yelled for help(that moment when OP said everything suddenly changed). Just trying to figure out where those "extra" bruises RS had fits in, perhaps OP already had grabbed his bat and then caught her by the bathroom window, an altercation ensued where she may have dropped her cell phone while trying to get into the toilet room slamming the toilet door behind her as he mocked her help help help and said whatchya gonna do now, call the cops... then started scaring the bejezuz out of her by smashing up the bathroom tiles, tub panel, toilet door, to which RS started screaming in absolute terror and OP realized he'd gone too far and had to "finish the race".

 

[808]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXQTs91w-c

This is someone's recreation of what they thought happened that night a lot of detailed work and extraordinary! :emu:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

That does seem to be one of his versions but on the stand he says he wasn't in bed when he heard the "intruder", from his story he's either near the balcony doors to the right or in front of the receiver, and he tells it like he's 5 inches tall and can't see over the edge of the bed instead of 5 feet tall on his stumps. lol

:giggle:

 

[mister happy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXQTs91w-c

This is someone's recreation of what they thought happened that night a lot of detailed work and extraordinary! :emu:

Good work, and almost sounds like it was narrated by judge Masipa!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oscar Pistorius and Alex Zanardi at Venice Marathon
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xazm2c_oscar-pistorius-and-alex-zanardi-at_sport

OP in much happier times.

Hard to believe this laughing, smiling, happy, carefree guy could put four Black Talons through a closed, locked door to kill a woman.

Maybe he was a nice person at one time.

WTF happened?

Does sudden fame, fortune and power steal your soul?

Or was Oscar Pistorius always just slick smoke and mirrors?

I wish I knew too. Something went wrong, the constant lies even before Reeva's death, being spoiled rotten and not being held accountable, his LOVE of guns, alcohol bringing the worse out in him etc. Maybe he was just a ticking bomb..... :dunno:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I’ve transcribed all relevant parts of this brilliant interview at the conclusion of Nel’s closing argument because it covers all the important issues:

“JG: What I want to say is that we’ve come to the point at the conclusion of all Nel’s efforts. We’ve said that Roux is in full flight and I would say that Nel has made a very nice landing in concluding his arguments. And in a very calm, dignified way, he submitted to the court that Oscar has to be convicted of murder on the basis that his story, his version, has to be rejected because for any number of reasons – he was a vague witness, he was argumentative, and most importantly he was guilty of striking mendacity. And he has said that the idea of a perceived intruder, once that’s out of the window, the whole defence falls flat. So his first submission is that even – and we must understand this – even if the court is unable to say that the State has proved how or why the murder was committed, ...
BB: The killing rather.

JG: ... sorry, the killing occurred, he is guilty of murder. And this is important for the public to understand – the State doesn’t have to prove why, the State doesn’t have to prove motive. Gerrie did proffer a timeline as to how the murder did occur and why, as regards them, by saying they must have been awake at the time, there’s an inference they had a quarrel. But it’s important for the public to understand that the State doesn’t have to prove that. It only has to prove that Oscar pointed the weapon at Reeva, shot and killed her without legal excuse. That’s all it has to do. So that was his first point.

And his second point was that even if you accept Oscar’s version, he is still guilty of murder as opposed to, let’s say, culpable homicide. He’s saying there’s still intention, and Ulrich is going to explain why that is so. From the public’s point of view it really boils down to this: You can’t just shoot an intruder. You can’t just execute an intruder. You cannot shoot or kill somebody just because they are in your house. You can only shoot somebody if you’re actually under imminent threat of serious injury or death.

UR: When one looks at the charge of murder, there are four different variances. The first is premeditated murder, then you have murder directus, then you have dolus eventualis and murder dolus indirectus. Premeditated murder is where there is a plan conceived and that plan is executed by the accused (example given). There is no definition in our law of premeditated murder. There is no definition in our Act. But people do get convicted of premeditated murder and the important thing surrounding that, and the difference between premeditated and normal murder is that with premeditated murder the court can sentence a person to life imprisonment – that is the minimum sentence. With murder the minimum sentence is 25 years. Where that comes into play is when a person receives a life sentence, he can only apply for parole after 25 years. When he receives 25 years, he can apply for parole after 12 years. So that is the big difference between premeditated and murder. Murder directus is where a person acts in a certain manner. He knows that if he acts in that manner someone will be killed and he acts accordingly. What Nel pointed out in his argument today is there is no significance in an error in persona. In other words whether it is an intruder behind the door or whether it is Reeva behind the door, there is no difference. He still wanted to kill whoever was behind that door.

BB: You already explained what premeditated murder was. You were then in the middle of explaining how somebody might kill another without perhaps planning to but nonetheless do it intending to do so.

UR: That is what we refer to as dolus directus. So I act on the spur of the moment so to speak. There is no premeditated plan but something happens and it enrages me or I act in a certain way. I want to kill a person and I proceed to kill that person. The importance of that definition in this case especially is that if there’s an error in persona, in other words if I’m not sure, as in Oscar’s case, who is behind that door, it is no defence. I still made up my mind to draw my firearm, fire four shots through that door with the intention of killing whoever is behind that door.

BB: Which is why then Nel was at pains to say, “Look, he did plan to do this. He went and thought about where the firearm was, he walked towards that door all the time shouting, he had enough time to make a decision, if you accept, as the State contends, that in fact Oscar knew it was Reeva behind that door. But if you put that aside and you go with his version, he then says he still can’t get off because he knew there was an individual behind that door, and in fact conceded that under cross-examination.

UR: Exactly. And the gap that Nel also has is there is no defined time limit to premeditated murder. You can plan it in a matter of 20 seconds or as I explained it earlier, in a matter of weeks or months. But that is where Nel still says that it was premeditated murder. We’ve finished with murder dolus directus now. Then you get murder dolus eventualis which Nel also referred to. Now, that is where a person knows that if he acts in a certain manner, there is a possibility that someone will be killed through his actions. He reconciles himself with that fact and he still acts accordingly, and that is what Nel is also saying. Even if you acquit him on premeditated murder or murder dolus directus, surely you must find him guilty him on that because surely you must have known that if you take your firearm and you discharge four bullets through a bathroom door, and it is your perception that there’s someone behind that door, there is a very real possibility that whoever is behind that door will be killed, you reconcile yourself with that fact and you still act accordingly. And then Nel went even one step further. He said, “Even if the Judge acquits Oscar on those three different variances of murder, then she must convict him on culpable homicide because his actions were so negligent, and of course that is the negligent killing of another person, that he must be convicted in that he thought that there was a – well, even if he thought there was an intruder, still his actions led to the person being killed and he was grossly negligent in doing that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs&list=UUHTN50mKYmmeg1-HBURUsg
&#8195;